On 02/02/2022 14:43, jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you for a productive CPWG call today.
Please kindly see attached a list of topics to considered for the GAC/ALAC bilateral meeting with a kind request to @ICANN At-Large Staff <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> to upload it onto the Wiki in a format similar to the one proposed by Justine: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186778158 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186778158> .
@justine.chew.icann@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> as per your suggestion, I added the issues raised for the GNSO meeting, feel free to specify which would be most relevant also for the GAC meeting.
@All, please share comments on the list by the end of the week.
Sorry for missing the meeting today. Just some comments on that EU DNS Abuse study linked in the Word document. 1. The definition of DNS Abuse is too wide and seems to include IP issues which are not DNS Abuse (they are Content Abuse issues rather than DNS) and are covered by UDRP and URS in gTLDs with ccTLDs having their own versions. 2. The CENTR estimate of web usage is inaccurate. This is not an accurate measurement of web usage and development. It is highly misleading because web usage across TLDs varies. I also don't rate the methodology as adequate. Usage in the top 100 gTLDs varies considerably and some are nowhere near as developed as the CENTR estimate claims. The ccTLDs also have their own quirks and complexities. 3. The economics of DNS Abuse seems to be missing. The heavy discounting model used by some of the new gTLDs to drive registration volume has changed the economic model of some kinds of DNS abuse. (There was a Dutch study a few years ago that established that there was a major switch of problematic registrations from the legacy gTLDs to the new gTLDs that was linked to the costs of registration. The mention, in this EU DNS Abuse document, of problem registrations being one year registrations was semed lacking a clue on the economics of abusive registrations. The abusive registrant simply lets the existing abusive registration drop and simply registers another discounted domain name. It may seem obvious to those of us in the domain name business but to those outside it, it is obviously a bit of a mystery. 4. It is rather ironic to see the born again hard attitude about .EU and speculative and abusive registrations considering that the incompetence of those forming the regulations for the .EU ccTLD left the ccTLD open to being completely plundered when it launched. It never quite became the European Union's alternative to the .COM gTLD as a direct result. The reality is that .EU is not even a third choice TLD for most registrants in the EU as they tend to register in their local ccTLD first, .COM second and then, perhaps, .NET or .ORG gTLDs. Some movement on abusive registrations in the .EU is a good thing even if it is about 17 years too late. 5. The ICANN definition of DNS Abuse is superior to this rather muddled attempt at a definition that blurs the line between DNS Abuse and Content Abuse. It is an IP community wishlist to save money on UDRP actions. 6. DNS Abuse is a moving target. Those doing the abuse adapt and change their behaviour. The problem with many of the approaches is that the are trying to solve problems from last year or the year before and are often unaware of current threats. 7. The NIS2 Directive is a poorly reasoned disaster in how it defines the DNS chain as critical infrastructure. 8. The technical appendix is interesting and worth reading. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com